ArticleSystematic reviews2025
A systematic review protocol for slow-paced breathing in healthy populations: Impacts on cognition and insights into mechanisms of action.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSlow-paced breathing (SPB) has emerged as an intervention to improve cognitive function and prevent cognitive decline. The proposed systematic review aims to consolidate previous literature examining the impacts of SPB across cognitive subdomains when compared to passive and active controls in adults, as well as the mechanisms involved.
methodsLiterature searches will be conducted in MEDLINE(R) ALL, Embase Classic + Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL Ultimate, and Web of Science. Gray literature sources include preprints and clinical trial registries. Citation tracking will be used as a supplemental search method. RCTs, quasi-randomized trials, and non-randomized interventions with a control or comparison group focused on adult human participants will be included. Studies on pediatric populations or animals will be excluded. The primary outcomes are standardized cognitive test scores and test batteries. Data on the parameters of SPB protocols will also be collected to gain insight into the mechanisms driving observed cognitive changes. Two independent reviewers will blindly complete citation screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using Covidence, and appraisal of study quality using GRADEpro. Risk of bias will be assessed for non-randomized controlled trials and RCTs using the ROBINS-I and RoB tools, respectively. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be conducted. Results will be stratified based on methodological features such as study design, population demographics, intervention parameters, and cognitive domain. If the data of the included literature permit, a meta-analysis will be performed to compare improvements by (i) cognitive domain, (ii) population demographics, and (iii) parameters of intervention protocols (e.g., duration of inhalation vs. exhalation). DISCUSSION: SPB is a promising intervention for conferring generalizable cognitive improvements. This review will consolidate early findings, give insight into SPB's efficacy as a clinical intervention, and lay the groundwork for future research into mechanisms and optimal parameters. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024615253.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.